Is Formula 1 broken?

[VIVA GT]

I've been reading this thread with interest (some great comments) and will continue to so I presume.
I've now come to the conclusion that although I don't think that Formula 1 is broken, I do feel that it is slowly crumbling away and if this is not halted, it will eventually crumble away to nothing.
Most of the blame for this (I feel) can be laid directly at the feet of 'those in charge', and in particular, the heads of those organisations.
From what I've seen, as far as Formula One is concerned, Jean Todt is doing a brilliant impression of the invisible man. There's so much crud (auto-sensor dodge word) going on that if they had balls bigger that petit pois, the FIA would step in & sort things out, but they just keep their heads down below the parapet, apparently happy to see the demise of what is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor sport World-wide. So much for the governing body.
Then there is the Commercial Rights holder who appears to be totally out of touch with reality, is allowing (and causing, due to his negative comments) fans to move away from the sport and appears to be purely interested in feathering their own nests in the short term, without any apparent concern for the long-term survival of F1.
I just hope that it manages to keep going for the next three years as once it is no longer available to view of free to air TV I won't be watching it anymore anyway...

[mikestow]

Yes you can get a SkyF1 Sports only add on,which used to cost £10 extra per month,and was available as part of the Sky HD Package as an extra to be taken up just for F1 fans with no other Sky Sports facilities.I dont know if it is still available like that,but I binned it last year and was able to take it back again,when it was announced the BBC was ending its contract late last year.
I looked at channel 4 last weekend,which I found to be very disjointed and Ben Edwards is worse than any Sky presenter,so bit the bullet and am back with Sky F1!!!!!!!

[Mike Harte]

It may be available to current Sky subscribers as a stand-alone channel, but to new Sky customers, F1 only seems to come bundled with the TV plus Sports package which costs something like £45 per month plus a line rental of about £18 pcm, all on a minimum 12 month contract.

[Jordan 199]

I certainly feel that the sport is broken, and if it continues in this fashion it will be irreparable.

The leadership of F1 is questionable: CVC see this as a pure business venture, Todt is toothless in his role, and Ecclestone is just an old joke peddling out his stupid ideas to make the racing more 'enjoyable,' without actually looking at the real issues.

With the new qualifying, the people in charge had given us a solution to the one problem that didn't need fixing. It caused ridiculous scenes in Australia, though when it suddenly became something the had to change immediately, I thought they were seemingly taking note of fan opinion again. However, Ecclestone has to go back on what was agreed and give us one more race to peddle his mixed up grid nonsense.

The stranglehold of Ferrari and Mercedes on the sport needs to end, and the distribution of prize money needs to be fairer.

How about instead of trying to mix up the starting grid, or giving drivers buttons to press to help to pass, why not focus on coming up with ways to engineer cars that race each other better? The sport is in danger of becoming an echo of its former glories, but when it does happen, the only people left to see the mess will be the die-hard fans that are willing to line Rupert Murdoch's pockets with more money.

More on that point. Considering that a lot of teams are struggling with title sponsorship, or sponsors full stop, isn't putting F1 behind a pay barrier going to mean less people will see the on-board advertising, which in turn will lead to sponsors paying out less money? Perhaps they're just trying to make the sport for the elite?

It's heartening to see the drivers all making a stand in terms of being fed up with the 'leadership' they have to endure. I just hope it doesn't all fall on deaf ears. I also can't believe how much F1 has been in the news recently. It's been a lot more than normal, and I'm not sure how much of it is good.

Hard times indeed.

[S griffin]

Another sensible view on the sport we love

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Jordan 199

More on that point. Considering that a lot of teams are struggling with title sponsorship, or sponsors full stop, isn't putting F1 behind a pay barrier going to mean less people will see the on-board advertising, which in turn will lead to sponsors paying out less money? Perhaps they're just trying to make the sport for the elite?

This is what happened to IndyCar. It didn't help that from the outset the Indy Racing League had trouble attracting sponsors and when most of the races ended up on subscription TV, the result was less and less exposure and fewer people watching the races. What sponsors there were went elsewhere and teams folded. Not only did TV audiences decline but track attendance also dwindled. There was many a race with very empty stands.

IndyCar is now only beginning to see an increase in its TV audience but it's nothing like it used to be.

Not the best model for a sport for the elite.

[alc59]

I don't believe F1 is broken. It's sick, and until it changes its lifestyle it will continue to deteriorate.

At the moment there are people wringing their hands and saying I'm awfully worried about it, but no-one is either:
1) taking the decision makers to the edge of the cliff and showing them the rocks below where they will end up if they can't develop a realistic balanced strategy for the future of the sport we cherish; or
2) saying no we're taking our ball away and not going to play any more if you don't change your ways.

It is going to get worse before it gets better, but when the crucnch comes, as it surely will, it will survive and regrow.

[chillibowl]

so much doom and gloom on the forum today, but this Mclaren advert for Channel 4 got my pulse going.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKrZtUcuhN0

for me there is still far more good with the sport then there is bad.

[Paradise City]

The in-house stakeholders are all paranoid of each other, concerned with their own affairs with only a vague interest in the long term interests of the sport. These types have too much power and the FIA isn't itself strong. The overall owners operate only as parasites. So we have a malfunction and semi-paralysis at minimum at play here. And all that is near impossible to unwind as noone wants to give ground.

Whether you think it is "broken", malfunctioning or adequate really depends on what you draw from the sport. A guy who rated Aus 9/10 in that thread and has a post full of praise for the action is probably happy enough whereas a guy who thinks the 80s or whenever was a benchmark era might not like the gimmick strewn sport of today.

The sport will always be there but I don't think we'll shed this malfunction. Regime change is unlikely to bring us a new team that will conserve the sport rather than loot it.

As for Todt's performance. The guy is more a manager. Give him full authority, he'll work his magic. But put him in position where he has to wade through negotiations with peers to win even a meagre improvement, he's often left frustrated. Mosley had a disarming charm and the knack of a showman to get things moving. Not that I commend him too much as he along with Eccelstone is why the FIA is so weak today.

[NaBUru38]

F1 races are impossible to watch. They are so boring.

Last year I tried to watch Interlagos. It was impossible. Usually the main straight had tight overtakes every lap along the field. But now overtakes are done by DRS. Zero thrill.

[old man]

There is a difference between races that are exciting to watch and races that are interesting. For me F1 is usually interesting if often predictable. The exciting races that we have had recently have regularly followed a mixed up grid and these are rare. In any class of racing where the cars are more or less equal there is a tendency for the race to follow the grid formation unless someone is out of place.

The most exciting racing I watch is on short ovals but there the fastest start at the back, the track is crowded and the racing very physical but the technology is very simple. If I had to chose which to watch, F1 or BRISCA I would probably chose F1 because I find it interesting and live in hope of excitement .

It all depends what you want from your racing

On the question of aero, I think we do need to simplify it, as has been said above, in the Cosworth era all cars were same engine and usually, same gearbox but because costs were relatively low (economies of scale?), we had full grids and many more good races. Sadly, we cannot go back but we do need the FIA to exert authority IMO. For F1 to actually belong to a purely commercial owner is what is wrong I think. Tennis, golf, rugby, football for that matter are not "owned" in this way. Bernie has done much for F1, brought stability but now he should find a way of relinquishing the deal he did with the FIA........ Dream on!!!

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

F1 races are impossible to watch. They are so boring.

Last year I tried to watch Interlagos. It was impossible. Usually the main straight had tight overtakes every lap along the field. But now overtakes are done by DRS. Zero thrill.

Interlagos was the worst race of 2015.I doubt anyone would have called Albert Park last week boring unless they were ignoring facts to promote their own agenda.

[Mike Harte]

The current qualifying debacle is symptomatic of how F1 is broken. BCE, with the tacit agreement of Jean Todt, tried to introduce a new system so that there was a possibility that Mercedes and Ferrari would not start at the front of the grid and therefore not win the races. He wanted all the successful cars from the last race to be given a time penalty that would added to their qualifying time, which may well have meant that the above two teams would find their cars towards the back of the grid.

Quite rightly, not one team agreed to this moronic idea, but they were not given any other option until BCE suggested the musical chairs format. Stuck between a rock and a hard place, they reluctantly agreed to the elimination process. When that was tried at Melbourne, and proved to be universally hated, the teams unanimously decided that the new format should be dropped, and the FIA and FOM agreed.

But as sporting rules can only be changed at short notice by the total agreement of all teams, the FIA then proposed that, instead of returning to the 2015 format, they would just tweak the Melbourne experiment; no other option was given. Either keep the Melbourne format, or a tweaked version.

McLaren and Red Bull voted against the tweaking in the belief that the FIA would come back with the option to return to the 2015 system. They were sadly mistaken.

Also see: http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mc...se-682248/?s=1

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The current qualifying debacle is symptomatic of how F1 is broken. BCE, with the tacit agreement of Jean Todt, tried to introduce a new system so that there was a possibility that Mercedes and Ferrari would not start at the front of the grid and therefore not win the races. He wanted all the successful cars from the last race to be given a time penalty that would added to their qualifying time, which may well have meant that the above two teams would find their cars towards the back of the grid.

Quite rightly, not one team agreed to this moronic idea, but they were not given any other option until BCE suggested the musical chairs format. Stuck between a rock and a hard place, they reluctantly agreed to the elimination process. When that was tried at Melbourne, and proved to be universally hated, the teams unanimously decided that the new format should be dropped, and the FIA and FOM agreed.

But as sporting rules can only be changed at short notice by the total agreement of all teams, the FIA then proposed that, instead of returning to the 2015 format, they would just tweak the Melbourne experiment; no other option was given. Either keep the Melbourne format, or a tweaked version.

McLaren and Red Bull voted against the tweaking in the belief that the FIA would come back with the option to return to the 2015 system. They were sadly mistaken.

Also see: http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mc...se-682248/?s=1

Completely agree with this. Political gymnastics to try and force through rules to artificially spice up the show that nobody at all appears to like.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

McLaren and Red Bull voted against the tweaking in the belief that the FIA would come back with the option to return to the 2015 system. They were sadly mistaken.

Also see: http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mc...se-682248/?s=1

That is not how I read it.

[Mike Harte]

Neither of the teams thought that the FIA and FOM could be so stupid as to not give them another option. I would humbly suggest that if, or when, the new format flops again in Bahrain, then the egg will be on Todt's and Mr E's faces rather than Dennis' and Horner's.

It's a bl**dy farce!

[S griffin]

I agree, I hate the way Bernie forces the teams to agree to their proposal and then the teams realise they made the wrong decision. And Bernie then passes the buck...

[wnut]

How can anybody but the FIA be blamed for this?

"After the shambolic end to Q3 in Australia, teams had unanimously agreed in Melbourne to ditch elimination qualifying and go back to last year’s system for the next race in Bahrain.
However, a decision was made by the FIA to not go that far and abandon the positive aspects of the change. Instead it wanted to give the shoot-out system another try, albeit in an improved format."

It is 100% the FIA's arrogance and stupidity!

[Mike Harte]

Another interesting article about the state of F1, how it's governed and what may be blowing in the wind.

See: http://www.racer.com/f1/item/127598-...e-piranha-club

[spider]

Do 2015's qualifying at the start of the year, first race. Ditch qualifying or make it for points thereafter. Then have everyone start in reverse championship order.

Surely that makes sense. Encourages racing each GP.

I mean, I say this - but didn't bother watching the Oz race. The sport's lost my attention...that makes me sad.

**** sounding cars. The engine disparity dominates the order. Cars that aren't particularly fast. With a dull weekend format. Ugly looking cars with the Halo device from next year. Dull drivers with outdated PR / media / marketing setups. Yawn. Nah, I'll just read the occassional race review and hope the sport implodes eventually so we can finally hit the refresh button.

[chillibowl]

i like the idea of adding points to the mix because in F1 points equals money and money is what motivates and there needs to be more incentive placed on the teams to make additional runs in qualifying regardless of the format being used.

allowing for pit lane refueling again would also help in the turnaround times but if they do that then we are again moving backwards towards allowing for refueling during races.

while i agree that there is a crisis of leadership in F1, my personal feeling is that moving forward is still the better/smarter option then reverting back to the format of the last few years which also inherently has the same problem of not enough tires and reluctance to add any more stress on the PU.

-if its about action on track, then a MotoGP format would make sense. split the grid in half and spread the action over the full hour.

-or if a car enters the garage during the session make that mean they are signaling their withdrawal from quali. force them to anticipate how much fuel they will need for the whole session and if they fuel too much they will need to run laps to burn fuel.

-dont let them use the super or ultra softs for quali. mandate that they use only the medium compound (and give them more sets of it) for quali which will allow them to do more then one or two laps.

maybe these suggestions are not that great and no doubt we all have tweaks and suggestions which we think would be better and in fairness i would like to see them all tried out. heck even let the track owners suggest their own formats and allow them to make it unique for each GP if they want to.

but going back to last years format is not the answer and imo isnt going to convince anyone who has already given up on F1 to come back because ultimately all we are talking about is a quali session. frankly im surprised that it is even generating this much ire. the lack of action during a race doesnt even get this much scrutiny!

[Mike Harte]

chillibowl, the reason that there is a general clamour to return to the 2015 qualifying format is not because it was the best thing since sliced bread, but because it appears to be so much better than the alternatives of either time penalties for putting in fast times or the elimination process.

Personally, I am 100% against allowing pit lane re-fuelling; it is inherently dangerous, and pretty well every year there are incidents which could have catastrophic results in the formulae that allow re-fuelling. That aside, the costs of transporting the re-fuelling rigs around 21 worldwide races is prohibitive; it requires an extra Boeing 747 to just carry the empty rigs to the fly-away races. That means a whole plane basically flying with air in containers as it's pay-load.

The qualifying procedures had almost been perfected by last year; they gave all the teams an extra set of tyres just for use in Q3, so that was no longer an excuse. Admittedly, sometimes the slowest 1 or 2 cars didn't come out to play in Q3 for a number of reasons, but that could have been resolved so easily by just giving a time penalty to those who didn't set a representative time in the session. Of course, dispensation would be given to a team that was able to demonstrate that the car was unable to make it out of the garage; don't forget, each car has a designated FIA observer in each garage monitoring "his/her" car.

[chillibowl]

agreed, i think allowing for refueling would be a mistake as well both in terms of safety and additional costs.

agreed that the 2015 format had made great improvements at ensuring more running in Q3 given where it was when the 3 round format was first introduced. it took several years to work it out...which is partially why i am willing to give them time to work out the new format.

but quali in 2015 was hardly exciting and given the processional nature of F1 (for a variety of reasons) the 2015 format only served to crystallize a running order which was incredibly similar to final racing order on Sunday. how many Merc 1-2 in quali was followed by a 1-2 on race day? i think they broke a record even.

so short of making greater changes (politically impossible) they are left with very few areas with which to affect race day.

is it artificial or manipulative...of course it is but im not sure what other avenues of change are doable. that for me gives merit to the notion of messing around with quali in the hopes (even a fleeting hope) that the race will contain a bit more drama.

[Mike Harte]

chillibowl, there are too many threads running which all cross over the same points. This is my response, which covers your post above, in another thread:

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

chillibowl, you keep on saying that there is wholesale condemnation of the new qualifying format despite the acknowledgement that there needs to be change. The problem is though that it is not qualifying that needs to be changed to neuter the current fastest cars; it is the rules surrounding the construction that need changing.

Go back over the decades, you will find that there has always been a certain level of dissatisfaction when ever a car or team were dominant. I can remember it when Tyrrel ruled the roost, and Williams, and McLaren and Ferrari. Back then, you knew before a wheel had turned which cars would be at the front, and usually who would be near the back. But those in charge didn't alter the qualifying to mix up the grid, which is what BCE and Todt are aiming to do.

It is not Mercedes' or Ferrari's fault that they have the best cars on the grid at the moment. It is just plain not right to attempt to punish them, especially Mercedes, for thinking outside of the box and producing something that is within the rules and yet is so much better than the rest. I don't think that any of the teams signed a contract with FOM to enter their cars into a handicap race championship, and I think that it is time that the teams mentioned that to BCE and the FIA; it certainly would be something that I would be saying to Mr E if I ran one of the teams.

[chillibowl]

quite right. better to try to keep this stuff together.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

chillibowl, you keep on saying that there is wholesale condemnation of the new qualifying format despite the acknowledgement that there needs to be change. ...

i dont think what i am saying is contradictory. im just willing to give it more time to improve as opposed to wanting to use this one format change (which amounts to a trivial change at best) as a sounding board to feed the current narrative about how F1 is broken.

i still derive a lot of enjoyment out of F1 so im willing to give them time to sort it out.

i am of course willing to have constructive conversations about the issues at hand (of which there are many) but i am not prepared to accept nor can i be convinced that it is broken because i know what i get out of it and still on the whole i find myself enjoying a GP weekend. rather it may be broken to others but it is not broken to me.

perhaps that means im crazy or dont have anything better to do with my time but thats an issue i have to take up with my girlfriend and not you guys!

as for the part about rule changes to alter the running order/eliminate dominance...that has also been the case for a long time. we have seen it changes made to quali during the Ferrari and RB periods and major rule changes to eliminate the advantage Williams had with the FW15C was it. for as long as i have been watching forcing change has always been on of the challenges to over come. its one of the reasons why we expect something new every year.

we have touched on this in the engines thread, but my position has always been that i am ok with dominance but im not ok with advantages in design lasting more than a season.